From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kinglong Mee Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: copy all valid xattr data includes the last zero Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:33:28 +0800 Message-ID: <10384529-5d09-712c-abba-a981be074072@gmail.com> References: <20170320030842.GB45667@jaegeuk.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1cpwVI-0001aM-J8 for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:33:40 +0000 Received: from mail-it0-f65.google.com ([209.85.214.65]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1cpwVH-00073k-Pm for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:33:40 +0000 Received: by mail-it0-f65.google.com with SMTP id y18so16793116itc.2 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 05:33:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20170320030842.GB45667@jaegeuk.local> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: Jaegeuk Kim Cc: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On 3/20/2017 11:08, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > Hi Kinglong, > > On 03/18, Kinglong Mee wrote: >> It's better coping all valid xattr data includes the last zero. > > Why do we need this? > > The size of txattr_addr would be larger than the space we need. > > Thanks, > >> >> Signed-off-by: Kinglong Mee >> --- >> fs/f2fs/xattr.c | 4 ++-- >> fs/f2fs/xattr.h | 4 ++-- >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/xattr.c b/fs/f2fs/xattr.c >> index aff7619..41785c9 100644 >> --- a/fs/f2fs/xattr.c >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/xattr.c >> @@ -249,7 +249,7 @@ static int lookup_all_xattrs(struct inode *inode, struct page *ipage, >> struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_I_SB(inode); >> void *cur_addr, *txattr_addr, *last_addr = NULL; >> nid_t xnid = F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_nid; >> - unsigned int size = xnid ? VALID_XATTR_BLOCK_SIZE : 0; Here maybe does not copy the last zero. >> + unsigned int size = xnid ? MAX_XATTR_BLOCK_SIZE : 0; >> unsigned int inline_size = 0; >> int err = 0; >> >> @@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ static int read_all_xattrs(struct inode *inode, struct page *ipage, >> { >> struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_I_SB(inode); >> struct f2fs_xattr_header *header; >> - size_t size = PAGE_SIZE, inline_size = 0; Yes, it's larger. It's for consistent with the above. thanks, Kinglong Mee >> + size_t size = MAX_XATTR_BLOCK_SIZE, inline_size = 0; >> void *txattr_addr; >> int err; >> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/xattr.h b/fs/f2fs/xattr.h >> index d5a9492..629c8ae 100644 >> --- a/fs/f2fs/xattr.h >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/xattr.h >> @@ -73,9 +73,9 @@ struct f2fs_xattr_entry { >> !IS_XATTR_LAST_ENTRY(entry);\ >> entry = XATTR_NEXT_ENTRY(entry)) >> #define MAX_XATTR_BLOCK_SIZE (PAGE_SIZE - sizeof(struct node_footer)) >> -#define VALID_XATTR_BLOCK_SIZE (MAX_XATTR_BLOCK_SIZE - sizeof(__u32)) >> +/* A __u32 is reserved for the last entry as zero */ >> #define MIN_OFFSET(i) XATTR_ALIGN(inline_xattr_size(i) + \ >> - VALID_XATTR_BLOCK_SIZE) >> + MAX_XATTR_BLOCK_SIZE - sizeof(__u32)) >> >> #define MAX_VALUE_LEN(i) (MIN_OFFSET(i) - \ >> sizeof(struct f2fs_xattr_header) - \ >> -- >> 2.9.3 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot